At 11:46 PM 10/31/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>Just how minimal do we want the list semantics to be? In particular, is
>this satisfiable? :
>
>7.
>rdf:nil rdf:rest _:xxx .
>
>? Or can I rule that out? If not, our claim that lists are bounded seems
>rather hollow, and that was the point of having them in the first place.....
Short answer: I *think* it's OK to say that's not satisfiable.
Longer answer:
I've been sitting on the side of this debate, not because I'm bereft of
opinion but because I haven't understood sufficiently what is being proposed.
I favour the idea that baseline RDF doesn't let FOL expressivity creep in
through the back door (e.g. can the list semantics be twisted to express
negation?), but sticks to the existential-conjunctive subset.
OTOH, I think it's fine that there be constraints on allowable
interpretations involving specific vocabulary, as above.
What I can't tell is if these are conflicting goals.
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>